法官安排特朗普封口费案的宣判时间为 1 月 10 日，但表示不会判他入狱
【中美创新时报2025 年 1 月 3 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）周五，一名法官出人意料地安排当选总统唐纳德·特朗普的封口费刑事案的宣判时间为 1 月 10 日——距离他返回白宫仅一周多一点——但表示不会判他入狱。美联社对此作了下述报道。
尽管如此，这一发展仍使特朗普有望成为第一位因重罪被定罪而上任的总统。
主持特朗普审判的曼哈顿法官胡安·M·默钱恩在一份书面决定中表示，他将判处这位前总统和未来总统无条件释放，即定罪有效，但案件结案，无需监禁、罚款或缓刑。如果特朗普愿意，他可以虚拟出庭接受宣判。
默钱恩拒绝了特朗普以总统豁免权和即将到来的第二任期为由驳回判决并驳回案件的要求，他写道，只有“对此事作出最终决定”才能符合正义的利益。
他说，他试图平衡特朗普“不受案件束缚”的执政能力与其他利益：美国最高法院 7 月关于总统豁免权的裁决和公众的期望“人人平等，没有人凌驾于法律之上”，以及尊重陪审团裁决的重要性。
随着华盛顿特区案件的驳回，特朗普不再受到联邦起诉
“本法院根本不相信在诉讼的这个阶段，第一个因素比其他因素更重要，”默钱在一份长达 18 页的裁决书中写道。
特朗普通讯主管张志强重申，特朗普长期以来一直认为该案件不合法，应该彻底驳回。
张志强在一份声明中表示：“不应该判刑，特朗普总统将继续打击这些骗局，直到他们全部死掉。”他没有详细说明特朗普下一步可能采取的法律行动。
前曼哈顿法官黛安·基塞尔表示，根据纽约法律，该裁决不能上诉，但特朗普可能会尝试上诉。无论如何，他可以对他的定罪提出上诉——这是在他被判刑之前不能采取的措施——但他不能赦免自己。特朗普的案件在州法院审理，但总统赦免仅适用于联邦罪行。
特朗普将于 1 月 20 日就职，成为首位被判有罪的前总统，也是首位当选总统的罪犯。
这位共和党人于 5 月被判犯有 34 项伪造商业记录的罪名——他谴责这一判决是民主党人曼哈顿地区检察官阿尔文布拉格 (Alvin Bragg) 发起的“政治迫害”的“操纵和耻辱”结果。
布拉格的办公室拒绝对 Merchan 的裁决发表评论。
这些指控涉及一项涉嫌在特朗普 2016 年首次竞选的最后几周隐瞒向色情演员斯托米丹尼尔斯 (Stormy Daniels) 支付封口费的计划。这笔钱是为了阻止她公开她多年前与已婚的特朗普发生过性关系的说法。他说她的故事是假的，他没有做错任何事。
该案的核心是特朗普如何解释向当时的私人律师迈克尔科恩 (Michael Cohen) 偿还丹尼尔斯的费用。科恩周五称，默尚决定继续宣判是“明智而恰当的”。
定罪后，现年 78 岁的特朗普可能面临罚款或缓刑，甚至最高四年监禁的处罚。他的刑期最初定于去年 7 月 11 日，后应辩方要求两次推迟。
然后，在特朗普 11 月 5 日当选后，默尚再次推迟了宣判，以便辩方和检方可以对该案件的未来进行权衡。
特朗普的律师敦促默尚放弃这一决定。他们表示，否则将对即将上任的总统治理国家的能力构成违宪的“干扰”。
检察官承认，应该为特朗普即将上任的总统任期做出一些让步，但他们坚持认为定罪应该维持。
他们提出了各种选择，比如在他任期内冻结案件或保证他不会被判入狱。他们还提议在正式记录特朗普被定罪和尚未决定的上诉的同时结案——这一新奇想法源自一些州法院在刑事被告上诉期间死亡时的做法。
默钱裁定，特朗普目前作为当选总统的身份，无法为他提供与现任总统相同的豁免权。默钱写道，搁置判决并驳回案件将是一个“激烈”的举措，并将“以不可估量的方式破坏法治”。
在特朗普 11 月大选之前，他的律师试图以另一个原因推翻对他的定罪：最高法院的豁免决定，该决定为总统提供了广泛的刑事起诉保护。
当科恩于 2016 年 10 月向丹尼尔斯付款时，特朗普是一名普通公民——正在竞选总统，但既未当选也未宣誓就职。科恩获得报销时，特朗普是总统，科恩作证说，他们在椭圆形办公室讨论了偿还安排。
特朗普封口费律师辩称，陪审团获得了一些本应受到总统豁免权保护的证据。默钱后来驳回了这一论点，但与此同时，选举引发了新的问题。
在敦促 Merchan 撤销定罪的同时，特朗普还试图将案件移交给联邦法院，在那里他也可以主张豁免权。联邦法官一再拒绝，但特朗普提出了上诉。
封口费案是特朗普四项刑事起诉中唯一一项进入审判阶段的案件。
自大选以来，特别检察官杰克·史密斯已经结束了他的两起联邦案件。其中一起涉及特朗普为推翻 2020 年大选失败所做的努力；另一起指控他在自己的海湖庄园藏匿机密文件。
上诉法院将检察官 Fani Willis 撤出案件后，佐治亚州另一起州级选举干预案陷入僵局。
特朗普的律师辩称，史密斯决定驳回对特朗普的联邦起诉，也应该推动驳回纽约封口费案。但 Merchan 表示，他认为这一论点没有说服力，并指出封口费案处于“截然不同”的阶段。
美联社记者 Larry Neumeister 对此亦有贡献。
题图：唐纳德·特朗普 摄影师：Allison Robbert/AFP/BloombergAllison Robbert/摄影师：Allison Robbert/AF
附原英文报道：
Judge schedules Trump’s sentencing in hush money case for Jan. 10 but says he won’t be jailed
By Associated PressUpdated January 3, 2025
Donald Trump Photographer: Allison Robbert/AFP/BloombergAllison Robbert/Photographer: Allison Robbert/AF
NEW YORK (AP) — In an extraordinary turn, a judge Friday set President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money criminal case for Jan. 10 — little over a week before he’s due to return to the White House — but indicated he wouldn’t be jailed.
The development nevertheless leaves Trump on course to be the first president to take office convicted of felony crimes.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, signaled in a written decision that he’d sentence the former and future president to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, in which a conviction stands but the case is closed without jail time, a fine or probation. Trump can appear virtually for sentencing, if he chooses.
Rejecting Trump’s push to dismiss the verdict and throw out the case on presidential immunity grounds and because of his impending second term, Merchan wrote that only “bringing finality to this matter” would serve the interests of justice.
He said he sought to balance Trump’s ability to govern, “unencumbered” by the case, against other interests: the U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity and the public’s expectation “that all are equal and no one is above the law,” and the importance of respecting a jury verdict.
With D.C. case dismissed, Trump is no longer under federal indictment
“This court is simply not persuaded that the first factor outweighs the others at this stage of the proceeding,” Merchan wrote in an 18-page decision.
Trump communications director Steven Cheung reiterated that the case, which Trump has long described as illegitimate, should be dismissed outright.
“There should be no sentencing, and President Trump will continue fighting against these hoaxes until they are all dead,” Cheung said in a statement. He didn’t elaborate on Trump’s potential next legal moves.
Former Manhattan Judge Diane Kiesel said the ruling can’t be appealed under New York law, but Trump nonetheless might try to appeal it. In any event, he can appeal his conviction — a step that can’t be taken until he is sentenced — but he won’t be able to pardon himself. Trump’s case was tried in state court, but presidential pardons only apply to federal crimes.
Trump takes office Jan. 20 as the first former president to be convicted of a crime and the first convicted criminal to be elected to the office.
The Republican was found guilty in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records — a verdict he has decried as the “rigged, disgraceful” result of a “witch hunt” pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat.
Bragg’s office declined to comment on Merchan’s ruling.
The charges involved an alleged scheme to hide a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in the last weeks of Trump’s first campaign in 2016. The payout was made to keep her from publicizing claims she’d had sex with the married Trump years earlier. He says that her story is false and that he did nothing wrong.
The case centered on how Trump accounted for reimbursing his personal attorney at the time, Michael Cohen, for the Daniels payment. Cohen on Friday called Merchan’s decision to go ahead with the sentencing “judicious and appropriate.”
The conviction left Trump, 78, facing the possibility of punishment ranging from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison. His sentencing initially was set for last July 11, then postponed twice at the defense’s request.
Then, after Trump’s Nov. 5 election, Merchan delayed the sentencing again so the defense and prosecution could weigh in on the future of the case.
Trump’s lawyers urged Merchan to toss it. They said it would otherwise pose unconstitutional “disruptions” to the incoming president’s ability to run the country.
Prosecutors acknowledged there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, but they insisted the conviction should stand.
They suggested various options, such as freezing the case during his term or guaranteeing him a no-jail sentence. They also proposed closing the case while formally noting both his conviction and his undecided appeal — a novel idea drawn from what some state courts do when criminal defendants die while appealing their cases.
Merchan ruled that Trump’s current status as president-elect does not afford him the same immunity as a sitting president. Setting the verdict aside and dismissing the case would be a “drastic” step and would “undermine the Rule of Law in immeasurable ways,” Merchan wrote.
Before Trump’s November election, his lawyers sought to reverse his conviction for a different reason: the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, which gave presidents broad protection from criminal prosecution.
Trump was a private citizen — campaigning for president, but neither elected nor sworn in — when Cohen paid Daniels in October 2016. He was president when Cohen was reimbursed, and Cohen testified that they discussed the repayment arrangement in the Oval Office.
The Trump hush money attorneys contended that the jury got some evidence that should have been shielded by presidential immunity. Merchan later rejected that argument, but in the meantime, the election raised new issues.
While urging Merchan to nix the conviction, Trump also sought to move the case to federal court, where he could also assert immunity. A federal judge repeatedly said no, but Trump appealed.
The hush money case was the only one of Trump’s four criminal indictments to go to trial.
Since the election, special counsel Jack Smith has ended his two federal cases. One pertained to Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss; the other alleged he hoarded classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
A separate, state-level election interference case in Georgia is in limbo after an appeals court removed prosecutor Fani Willis from the case.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Smith’s decision to dismiss the federal indictments against Trump should propel a dismissal of the New York hush money case, as well. But Merchan said he found that argument unpersuasive, noting that the hush money case was in a “vastly” different stage.
Associated Press writer Larry Neumeister contributed.
